10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got things wrong. If it did, then we consider if this had a negative effect and what the organisation has done to put things right.
Writing to trustees
11. Mr I feels the Charity Commission should have written to him directly when it requested more information. He says it was wrong for the Charity Commission to raise its concerns with all the charity trustees.
12. The Charity Commission’s Regulatory and Risk Framework from the time sets out how it assesses and responds to concerns. The guidance says when the Charity Commission is considering how to respond to a concern it will consider the conduct and response of trustees.
13. Specifically, it will consider whether: • the trustees have acted honestly and reasonably • there are indications that they have been careless or reckless • there has been deliberate or wilful wrongdoing
14. It will also consider whether the trustees are: • willing and able to act to manage the risk and/or deal with the harm • willing to act but are unable to manage the risk and/or deal with the harm themselves • unwilling to act.
15. Based on the guidance above, the Charity Commission must consider the behaviour of all trustees when deciding to open an official inquiry. The trustees’ response will not just contribute to matters of fact, but also issues like their behaviour and competency.
16. We recognise Mr I feels the Chairty Commission should have written to just him about its concerns over payments. However, in line the guidance the Charity Commission must follow we consider it appears reasonable for it to write to all trustees about its concerns.
17. We know this has caused him a lot of concern and he feels let down by the Charity Commission.
Wrong name
18. The Charity Commission’s response to Mr I’s complaint acknowledged its request for information contained an error. It said it incorrectly named Mr I as receiving a salary and the charity was rightly paying a different individual.
19. Based on the Charity Commission’s response something clearly went wrong here. It would not be proportionate for us to question this fact further. We have therefore focused on the impact this had and what the Charity Commission has done to put things right.
20. In terms of the impact, Mr I says he is well known in his local community. He says he and his family felt unsafe to leave their home when the community learned of the Charity Commission’s letter. He also says he was concerned he would lose his job.
21. Mr I told us these events have traumatised him and his family. He says this has caused them a significant amount of stress and anxiety. Mr I feels this stress may have contributed to some significant nerve pain he had.
22. We acknowledge how stressful this period was for Mr I and why he is so unhappy with the Charity Commission.
23. Our principles set out an organisation should apologise promptly if it gets things wrong. An apology involves identifying what went wrong, acknowledging the impact of it, and saying sorry. The organisation should also act to stop the same thing happening again in the future.
24. Our principles also set out financial remedy is due in certain circumstances. These include when an apology does not go far enough, or when someone has experienced an actual financial loss that would have been avoided.
25. When deciding on the amount of financial remedy we refer to our severity of injustice scale. This is to ensure amounts are consistent and fair.
26. Level 1 on this scale is for impacts such as ‘annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience.’ These impacts typically arise from one-off failings where the effect is experienced for a short period. We consider an apology is appropriate remedy in these cases.
27. Alternatively, the most serious impacts fall at level 6. These involve ‘profound, devastating or irreversible impacts on the person affected.’ Typical examples include avoidable death and injuries resulting in permanent disability or disfigurement.
28. To put things right, the Charity Commission’s complaint response to Mr I explained it sent its request for more information to just the charity trustees and no one else. It acknowledged it wrongly named Mr I as potentially receiving a salary, but said it did not make a ‘definitive statement’. Specifically, its request said Mr I ‘appears to be being paid’.
29. The complaint response told Mr I it sent the letter because it had received concerns about a dispute within the charity. It said it investigated these concerns by obtaining banking information in line with its legislative powers. However, the Charity Commission accountant who reviewed the information incorrectly substituted Mr I’s name with someone the charity was paying legitimately.
30. The Charity Commission said it had changed its procedures to reduce the likelihood of the same mistake happening again.
31. The Charity Commission also wrote to the trustees two days after Mr I informed it the charity was not paying him. The Charity Commission told all trustees of its error and advised them to destroy the original letter. It also apologised to Mr I at the time for its actions.
32. The Charity Commission’s complaint responses have also repeated the apologies for the stress he has experienced. It also offered to send additional letters to individuals or groups in the community to clarify it named Mr I in error.
33. Having considered the Charity Commission’s responses we are conscious it did not explicitly accuse Mr I of drawing a salary. Instead, it requested more information so it could investigate further.
34. Additionally, the Charity Commission sent its request to charity trustees who should have treated the information as confidential. Whilst the community eventually learned of its request there is no indication this came from the Charity Commission directly.
35. Therefore, it does not appear all the impacts Mr I has told us about flow purely from the Charity Commission’s actions. Nonetheless, we do acknowledge this would have been a worrying time for Mr I and understandably caused some stress.
36. Having looked at what the Charity Commission has done to put things right, we are satisfied it has fully explained how the error happened. It appeared to have been a one-off human error and the Charity Commission has acted to reduce the chances of it happening again.
37. Furthermore, the Charity Commission has acknowledged the emotional impact of its actions on Mr I. It did so promptly – just two days after Mr I explained the charity was not paying him.
38. Therefore, the limited impacts of the Charity Commission’s actions were for only a short duration. This sits at level 1 on our severity of injustice scale, meaning an apology is a sufficient remedy. For this reason, we do not believe financial remedy is appropriate for the emotional impact Mr I experienced.
39. Furthermore, there does not appear to be proof to demonstrate Mr I has missed out on employment because of the Charity Commission’s actions or he has had to make any payments he would otherwise have avoided. With this in mind, there does not appear to be evidence Mr I has experienced any actual financial loss because of what happened.
40. Having considered all the information we cannot identify a good reason for a financial remedy in this instance. Therefore, we are satisfied the Charity Commission has done enough to put right what happened.
41. We understand this was a troubling time for Mr I. We do not doubt the stress he has experienced or the emotional impact on him and his family.